Smoking Bans - Where will it end?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


I don't mean to be rude, simply letting you know.


Smokers have no idea how bad they smell.


It is gross to be in proximity to someone with bad BO, and it is gross to be in proximity to a smoker.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
Did she live in the GTA (Toronto and surrounding area) within 300 meters of the 401, DVP, 427, 404, 407, Gardiner Expressway, the QEW, downtown Toronto, Burlington/Hamilton, etc.?

Obviously not, as she was my neighbour and I lived in Portugal all my life.

I didn't realize the pollution traveled that far ;-) But seriously, in Toronto we do have a major problem with vehicular pollution around the core highways. At one point I lived within 150 meters of the 401 and during the rush hour and most of the day I could not breath properly. It got to the point where I had to move up north just to get away from it and try to clear my lungs a bit, because I would rather smoke 1/2 a pack a day than the equivalent of 2-1/2 packs a day.

BTW, in terms of politically motivated "science," being in the engineering and scientific community for 40 years, I would have to say that it is my humble opinion that ALL politically motivated science IS fraudulent.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Smoking is low class.

This was rude, sorry.


No way to dance around it though.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Seamrog

Oh gee thanks Seamrog

You know when I saw all those ads on tv that mentioned how dirty, filthy smokers were and how bad they stunk! God I thought it was all a mis-print for the last 50 years or so - I thought it was all a mis-print. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

You are a sweet sweet person aren't you?

Tired of Control Freaks

The Dick Van Dyke Show, classic example of suburbanite middle class. No one said that about Mary Tyler Moore.

a reply to: WarminIndy

LOL - of course not! But that was before the anti-smoker campaigns to educate the public happened. People back then just didn't know that it smelled bad. They had to be told!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Seamrog

Seamrog

whether something smells good or bad depends on the person's individual taste. Some people love the smell of fish and others gag on it.

There are many many things that smell bad in this world and a few of them even smell worse than a smoker.

I am a woman. In my whole life, I never ever noticed a man who hesitated on the smell when he wanted to get some though!

Tired of Control freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Remember Reefer Madness - the excuses that were used to pass marijuana prohition. It was all lies. They knew it was lies but it was a fine moral cause - marijuana free society.

We have seen and witnessed forty years of marijuana prohibition. Fortunes were made by some, live destroyed for most, jails full, corrupt police and justice system.

All based on lies!

Do you really believe that the anti-smokers don't know they are lying?

Tired of control Freaks

I do and here is the reason.....
www.theagitator.com...

Can’t vouch for this history lesson from reader Mike Cheel, but it’s damned provocative. The one thing they don’t talk about anywhere (at least in government circles) is why pot is illegal in the first place. The main reason it is illegal is because back in the 30′s William Randolph Hearst owned a lot of newspapers and owned the paper mills that printed the paper. Hemp (which of course is not exactly the same thing as marijuana but is commonly associated and lumped together with it) was competing with his paper production so he rallied his friends in power (government) and finally made it illegal in 1937. I don’t think a lot of people know this. The interesting part is that when the case was originally brought before congress the prosecutor (Anslinger) claimed that it caused violence, attacks, delerium, death and was only used by poor black people (jazz musicians I believe). When the topic came back up in the 50′s the same guy (Anslinger) told congress a totally different story. Now his tale said that it should be illegal because it caused mellowness and apathy. He said the communists would try to use it against our youth in a bid to corrupt America.

The rest of the article is even better:-)
This occurred way back in the 30's and it was money driven and not Science driven.....The guy owned the media and he had control.

Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: Iwinder

Please clarify - I can't figure out if you agree with me that the anti-smokers are lying as they did with Reefer Madness or not.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Seamrog

Seamrog

I am an older woman now and far more confident than I have the right to be. If you don't like what you see or don't like what you smell, don't date me and I won't make you touch it!

Tired of Control Freaks

Ok now I can't remember exactly when the smoking ban came in to effect in the uk but I Can say from a smoking point of view what I think.

First thing in your own home its should be up to you whether you smoke or not it's your home regardless of whether you rent or own it. Saying this is don't smoke in my house cause I have a severely poorly daughter who suffers from oxygen problem.

I also used to work in a bar and I was forever telling smokers to not blow smoke in my face at bbar.

The smoking ban I thought was an ok idea I do believe like mentioned in post they maybe should have gave some pubs/clubs a choice of smoker non smoker. But I'll also say as a smoker I couldn't stand people smoking while I was eating.

Now the laws not a bad thing I've always had a bit of courtesy to people that don't smoke but when I light a cig up in street and people blatantly moan or start doing the fake cough thing it really gets on my nerves.

People that smoke should have courtesy for people that don't but people that don't smoke need to get a grip and understand that just because they don't like something doesn't mean they should try and ruin it for others that do.

It's not about health of non smokers there is a smoking ban we can't smoke in enclosed public places so suck it up and stop moaning.

Last time I had argument about this in a club was with someone who drove so I said well you stop driving your car gives out probably more fumes than I do. Later that night i saw him driving out of car park drunk so between the 2 of us I recon he would be a bigger danger to other people's health l.

a reply to: Honkwoo1486

On point.

The non-smoking drunk posed a greater health danger. Legislate against drunk drivers, I say...wait, there's already legislation against that. Suppose it didn't work.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Iwinder

Please clarify - I can't figure out if you agree with me that the anti-smokers are lying as they did with Reefer Madness or not.

Tired of Control Freaks

Certainly I can clarify my stance, it appears to me, that Pot was banned because of financial reasons regarding Mr Hearsts fortunes and therefor done for wealth and most certainly not health. :-)

So other substances can be banned as well for unseen reasons at first glance, and I will opine that they want all tobacco fields plowed under to make way for corn to feed the Bio plants.......

Not to feed the people but to feed the energy sector with unlimited close by corn for Ethanol production.
I am with you on the smoking thing all the way.

I hope this explains my stance.
Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: Iwinder

Perfectly! thank you

The financial reason in this case is Big Pharma. The smoking cessation products (patches, gummy bears, lozenges, inhalors) have been worth 2 billion dollars a year. They wanted to take over the business of providing nicotene to smokers from the tobacco industry.

With the advent of e-cigarettes however, the interest in funding further anti-smoker campaigns is fading.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
No if a company is making hiring/employment decisions based on if someone smokes or not without good reason I would agree that company is in the wrong. However that is still a million miles sea from from state sanctioned or supported discrimination. Can you give an actual example of discrimination based onsomeone being a smoker.

Smoking is an addiction. It doesn't offer you amazing health benefits. Go ahead and spend all that money on something you don't need. I used to be a smoker and I feel better for it. If your life is so stressful that you need to cling to cigarettes to get your head straight, you are a weak person, hands down. There is only one true reason why you smoke, and that is addiction. I don't want to smell or see your BILLIONS of cigarettes butts littering the streets EVERYWHERE. Smokers are not responsible in disposing of their butts at all. It's annoying having friends who smoke since we have to stop every so often while working for a smoke break, or the entitlement of a smoke breaks smokers think they deserve while at work. Smoke at home, smoke in your car I don't care. You made a personal choice to try it, got addicted to it and I don't want to deal with your addiction.

a reply to: InfinityandBeyond

Then don't deal with it!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: ScepticScot

OK ScepticScott _ I spent a lot of time discussing the withdrawal fo the Right to Peaceful Assembly with you - please read my post.

I am sorry. Even though the discrimination is employed by employers, the truth is that the government attaches a non-smoking policy requirement to every industry grant. So the job discrimination is state sponsered.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
If you can show that government actively discriminates directly or indirectly against smokers in employment you have my complete agreement that this is wrong. In the UK while smoking is actively discouraged there is no legislation discriminating against smokers.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
No if a company is making hiring/employment decisions based on if someone smokes or not without good reason I would agree that company is in the wrong. However that is still a million miles sea from from state sanctioned or supported discrimination. Can you give an actual example of discrimination based onsomeone being a smoker.

Hmm.

Is it discrimination or not when a gay person is not hired because they are gay? I know, I know..choices and all of that other stuff.

But still, isn't it discrimination?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

as a smoker i agree and may The God forbid im still smoking when i have kids? Whats the point in having them when your literally killing them slowly. is it so bad to smoke outside. Second just because you "own" your house doesnt give you the right to kill your kids.